Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I've seen a lot of posts (reddit, facebook, twitter etc) of people saying, "Is the Lance Armstrong confession really relevant?" or "No one could name another cyclist besides him because cycling is irrelavent in the US"... It's really getting on my nerves because I feel like this story is a bigger deal than what people are making it out to be.

First and foremost, I am glad the man beat cancer. The livestrong foundation is a great thing. Hell, I'm not a "cycling" fan and I wore a livestrong bracelet for a long time. I've had family memebers lose to the battle of cancer so I support any foundation for cancer research etc.

The point I'm trying to drive to people is that Lance built his "story" on an initial truth- beating testicular cancer- followed by MANY lies by blood doping and winning (however) many Tour De France races in a row and becoming a what is now a faux American hero- not only to cycling fans- but to the average joe schmo American like myself. He has profited off of these lies, bullied people over and over and that it just bothers me that people are shrugging it off like "no big deal, cycling is dumb anyways..."

Well, if there's one thing to take away from this is this may have turned into a ying-yang situation. Armstrong getting cancer for trying to win the Tour may have lead to millions being donated for cancer research.

I doubt that anyone can win the Tour de France without doping. I've driven up some of the hills that they climb in the Alps and for them to average whatever miles per hour takes some serious power. When this stuff started coming out, IIRC, they couldn't find anyone in the top 3 for a few years of the Tour de France to give the winner's medal to instead of Armstrong. They had all been caught taking drugs.

Armstrong had cancer in 96 and won his first Tour in 99. The drugs may have had something to do with his cancer, but it sure as hell didn't stop him doping for his Tour wins.

I've seen a lot of posts (reddit, facebook, twitter etc) of people saying, "Is the Lance Armstrong confession really relevant?" or "No one could name another cyclist besides him because cycling is irrelavent in the US"... It's really getting on my nerves because I feel like this story is a bigger deal than what people are making it out to be.

Where are you reading these posts? That might matter a great deal.

From what I've seen, it's a pretty big deal, at least around here. Not only in the media, but I've heard a lot of students talking about it, too. Of course, I'm in his home state of Texas, and some people are pretty riled up that he has represent them, too.